A real estate agent who carries on the negotiations between the parties and finally brings them together, is entitled to his commissions, though the trade is eventually effected by the owner himself or by a third person acting for him. Larson v. Thoma (Iowa Sup. '09), 121 N. W. 1059; Scott v. Patterson, 53 Ark. 49, 13 S. W. 419; Hancock v. Stacey (Tex. Civ. App. '09), 116 S. W. 177; Howe v. Werner, 7 Col. App. 530, 44 P. 511; Gresham v. Connelly, 114 Ga. 906, 41 S. E. 42; Hutton v. Benner, 74 I11. App. 124; Ellis v. Dunsworth, 49 I11. App. 187; Gibson v. Hunt (Iowa Sup. '03), 94 N. W. 277; Hubbard v. Leiter, 145 Mich. 387, 108 N. W. 735, 13 D. L. N. 477; Hedden v. Shepherd, 29 N. J. L. 334; Somers v. Westcott, 66 N. J. L. 551, 49 A. 462; Woolley v. Loew, 80 Hun, 294, 30 N. Y. S. 86; Carroll v. Pettit, 67 Hun, 418, 22 N. Y. S. 250; Chilton v. Butler, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 150; Esmond v. Kingsley, 3 N. Y. S. 696; Lynch v. McKenno, 58 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 42; Keys v. Johnson, 68 Pa. St. 42; Sylvester v. Johnson, 110 Tenn. 392, 75 S. W. 923; Van Tobel v. Stetson, etc., Mill Co., 32 Wash. 683, 73 P. 788; Day v. Porter, 161 I11. 235, 43 N. E. 1073; Church v. Dunham, 14 Idaho, 776, 96 P. 203, 205; Jennings v. Trumin, 52 Ore. 149, 96 P. 874; Masters v. Hunt, 192 S. W. 219, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Regner v. Mackrill, 164 K W. 335,

- Iowa Sup. -; Bitch v. Robertson, 106 A. 509, - Conn. Sup.

-; Bauer v. Crew, 221 S. W. 936, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

After the principal and the customer found by the broker agree upon terms, the broker's right to a commission can not be defeated by the principal's transferring the property indirectly by a deed to a third person who reconveyed to the broker's customer. Williams v. Bishop, 11 Colo. App. 378, 53 P. 289; Barnett v. Gluting, 3 Ind. App. 415, 29 N. E. 154, 927; Steidl v. McClymonds, 90 Minn. 205, 95 N. W. 906; Burke v. Cogswell, 39 Minn. 344, 40 N. W. 251; Oarvin v. Abels-Gold B. Co., 110 N. Y. S. 582, 126 App. Div. 329; Martin v. Fegan, 88 N. Y. S. 472, 95 App. Div. 154; Minister v. Benoliel, 66 N. Y. S. 943, 32 Misc. 630, reversed on other grounds, 67 N. Y. S. 1044, 33 M. 586; Konner v. Anderson, 66 N. Y. S. 338, 32 Misc. 511; Fox v. Byrnes, 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 150. Compare Sec. 425a.

Nor by an agreement declaring the sale off. O'Neill v. Printz, 115 Mo. App. 215, 91 S. W. 174. In order to defeat the broker's right to a commission, the principal must have substantial ground for refusing to complete the transaction, and have done nothing to estop setting it up. Alabama Loan Co. v. Deans, 94 Ala. 377, 11 S. 17; Fiske v. Soule, 87 Cal. 313, 25 P. 430; Cawlcer v. Apple, 15 Colo. 141, 25 P. 181; Peabody v. Dewey, 51 I11. App. 260, affirmed 153 I11. 657, 37 N. E. 977, 27 L. R. A. 322; Indiana Ber. Asp. Co. v. Robinson, 29 Ind. App. 59, 63 N. E. 797; Felts v. Butcher, 93 Iowa, 414, 61 N. W. 991; Hayden v. Grillo, 35 Mo. App. 647; Bailey v. Chapman, 41 Mo. 536; Hartford v. McGillicuddy, 103 Md. 224, 68 A. 860; Carpenter v. Rynders, 52 Mo. 278; Blaydos v. Adams, 35 Mo. App. 526; Goodson v. Emblelon, 106 Mo. App. 77, 80 S. W. 22; Finke v. Menke, 67 N. Y. S. 954, 33 Misc. 769; Ernst v. Loeb, 108 N. Y. S. 631; Kirwan v. Barney, 61 N. Y. S. 122, 29 Misc. 614; Friend v. Jetter, 43 N. Y. S. 287, 19 Misc. 101; Delaplane v. Turney, 44 Wis. 31; Greenwald v. Rosen, 113 N. Y. S. 764, 61 Misc. 260; Becker v. Holleson, 198 I11. App. 180; Bruce v. Meserve, 117 N. E. 830, - Mass. Sup. - .

The fact that the principal does not own the property which he employs the broker to sell does not defeat the broker's right to compensation on procuring a purchaser. Smith v. Schiele, 93 Cla. 144, 28 P. 857. Where, at the date of the contract of employment the principal had only an option on the land, or for any other reason can not avail himself of the offer procured by the broker. Monk v. Parker, 180 Mass. 246, 63 N. E. 793; Koslove v. Dittmeier, 203 S. W. 499, - Mo. App. - . False representations of the broker concerning the property which he was negotiating to sell do not defeat his right to commissions where it appears that the purchaser, under the contract of sale, made independent inquiries as to the subject of the representations. Friend v. Jette, 41 N. Y. S. 560, 18 Misc. 368. Where a principal made false representations that defeated a sale made by the broker, this did not deprive the broker of his commissions. Glentworth v. Luther, 21 Barb. (N. Y.), 145. Compare Crockett v. Grayson, 98 Va. 354, 36 S. E. 477. See also Sec. 313.

A vendor can not escape liability to the broker for commissions by himself completing a sale to a purchaser with whom the broker had been negotiating, by including in the sale other lands in addition to those the broker was employed to sell. Ransom v. Weston, 110 Mich. 240, 68 N. W. 152. Where a broker is employed to sell land, and when his negotiation is nearly finished the owner limits the time within which a sale must be made and notice be sent to him, and the agent makes a sale without delay and sends notice to the principal within the time limited, that being all that was required of the broker under the contract, the miscarriage of the notice does not deprive the agent of his commission. Gibbons v. Sherwin, 28 Neb. 146, 44 N. W. 99. Where the authority conferred on the broker to sell lands is limited in time, the agent will be entitled to his commission if within that time he procures a purchaser with whom his principal enters into a binding contract of sale and purchase, although the conveyance of the lands is not made until after the time allowed has elapsed. Crowley Co. v. Meyers, 69 N. J. L. 245, 55 A. 305; Cody v. Dempsey, 83 N. Y. S. 899, 86 App. Div. 335.

Defendant placed his ranch in plaintiffs' hands to sell on commission within a specified time; they found a purchaser who paid to defendant part of the purchase money, and tendered the balance in checks, which defendant refused; after the time specified had expired, defendant, without returning the partial payment, conveyed the ranch to his father, who conveyed it to the purchaser on payment of the balance of the agreed price, defendant saying at the time that he did not intend to pay plaintiffs any commissions. Held, that the plaintiffs were entitled to their commissions, the sale being made to their purchaser, and defendant not having repudiated the original contract of sale by returning the money paid upon it. Wilson v. Sturgis, 71 Cal. 226, 16 P. 772.